UC540 with remote sites

[daniel.morales.sk]

we have a UC540 at the main office, and a router 881 in a remote office. We perform a Site to Site VPN between the office and remote site in which physical phone installed.

Is this scenario possible? or need for physical phones at the remote site to register on my uc540 central office?

another scenario would be to use two ROUTERS 881 both the central office to the remote site and perform a site to site VPN, the uc540 would be found behind the router 881.

[daniel.morales.sk]

initially could make a vpn site to site with the SR520 router, and physical phone so you can register from remote sites, but this router is in EOL, and its replacement is the CISCO867VAE-K9, with the 881 router I can do the same scenario?

[paolo bevilacqua]

Yes. Any Cisco router can do that.

[daniel.morales.sk]

Would have no problem with physical models of phones, for example if I use the phone SPA303 or SPA502, these phones were registered through the vpn site to site in the uc540?

[paolo bevilacqua]

For best results I always recommend not to use linksys / SPA phones but only true Cisco, however these work.

[daniel.morales.sk]

In some special phone model you would recommend to place it at the remote site?

[paolo bevilacqua]

All the 79xx phones are very good.

[daniel.morales.sk]

Thank you very much for your help Paolo ...

[daniel.morales.sk]

Please let me know which is a limiting SPA300 phones to use in remote sites?

[daniel.morales.sk]

I have a question...

On the same scheme described above, instead of using a UC540, UC320 would be used one, it would likely through VPN site to site can register the phone to remote sites?

[paolo bevilacqua · Accepted solution]

Yes, VPN can transport traffic for any application.

Thank you for the nice rating and good luck!

[David Trad · Accepted solution]

Hi Daniel,

I am not sure about going forward with the UC-320 Option, unless something has changed with it I do not believe it will achieve what you want as it is not an IOS based device and may nto integrate with a UC correctly without some heavy CLI work around's on the UC-500 side.

Also Further to what Paolo has advised, you can also consider the Cisco 6900 series phones if you want a cost alternative product, which generally perform better than the SPA series for voice quality (IMHO).

Cheers,


David Trad.

[daniel.morales.sk]

Hi David,

In short you do not recommend this type of scenario using a UC320?

It is true that the UC320 has no CLI, but through the VPN site to site will be able to register the physical phone?

Any other limitation that has the phone for SPA families, besides the voice quality?

[paolo bevilacqua]

What we're trying to tell you here, if you want an excellent, proven solution, get an UC520 with 79xx phones.

Anything else, will not be so good, and may leave customer disappointed.

Also very important, if you do not have extensive experience in telephony and networking, do not attempt to do this by yourself. Engage a reputable consultant or UC certified Cisco partner.

[daniel.morales.sk]

On the schedule we have, if at sites of remote has a FXO, this call can be redirected to the central office? or need another UC5XXpara able to do this?